you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 5 days ago* (37 children)

Let's be honest, they do so by adhering to cultural norms with the exact same devotion and lack of scrutiny that religious people do.

"Why do we do it this way?" "We've always done it this way!" "Why is it wrong?" "Because it's just wrong!"

The very small subset of actually moral people decide between good and bad choices not depending on social norms, not depending on laws, not even depending on morals or ethics, but by what motivations their actions arise from, whether they come from Ego or understanding.

You can never know whether an action is good or bad, you can only know whether your motivations are good or bad.

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 days ago (30 children)

    Religious people act like they're more moral or have morality that's special because they believe in God. However when you ask why all those pious people back in the day: cheated, stole, murdered, adulterer, were racist, had slaves, raped kids and stuff. They would say that it was the norm at the time and nobody else knew better.

    To paraphrase Stephen J Fry: "then what are you for?!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 5 days ago (29 children)

    Sure, but so do atheists. They just believe their morality is special because they believe in the current social norms, within the current societal context. In 10 years they'll be different, should a catastrophe happen it will shift completely. It's just as flippant in its own way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 days ago (28 children)

    There's pretty solid evidence supporting empathy as a beneficial evolutionary trait, it's not like it's random that "don't be shitty to each other" is a social norm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    if empathy was truly universally favored by evolution, then there wouldn't be any non-emphathetic humans today and we wouldn't have this discussion, just saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    That's not at all how that works. First at no point have I made any "universally" claims. Nothing in evolution or psychology is 100% universal. Second, empathy, on average, is good for the health of the species. Selfishness is a gamble: it can dramatically increase the individual's odds of passing on their genes but it requires enough non-selfish targets to exploit or it actually has a negative impact. More simply, jackasses fighting each other are worse off than pacifists working together.

    So what's favored is for most people to be altruistic and a small percentage of predators take advantage of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 5 days ago (25 children)

    But social norms aren't empathy. They are adhered to because of the punishment that will result if you break them. Before you have any chance of developing empathy or emotional intelligence, you are taught as a child that breaking social norms will result in punishment, and from then on your only motivation to follow them is fear of punishment.

    And that is exactly the same mechanism as religious morality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 days ago (9 children)

    you are taught as a child that breaking social norms will result in punishment, and from then on your only motivation to follow them is fear of punishment.

    I'm sorry to hear about your sociopathy, but no this is not how most people work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (8 children)

    Deflection beats introspection, eh? It always amazes me how easily insults come to the "morally righteous".

    At least now you know how people become bad - they don't have the courage to question whether what they're doing is actually good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 days ago (7 children)

    It's not an insult It's illustrating the ridiculousness of your claim. Your faux-intellectual philosophy is not convincing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 days ago (6 children)

    Of course, when you call people psycopath it's not an insult, but if someone else were to say it to you, it would be.

    And it's like this with everything, isn't it? But you're the good guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 days ago (5 children)

    First, I said "sociopath" not "psychopath". There's different connotations. Second, it's a description of a pattern of thought. Because you're saying that the only reason people don't to terrible things to each other is because of the fear of punishment, not some intrinsic internal sense of fairness or social cohesion. Like a sociopath would think, because they don't feel normal emotions or empathy.

    "Psychopath" would be an insult but also an accusation of malice or cruelty. I don't think you're cruel. (I think you're high on your own farts, and that's not so much an insult as an observation because you're doing the same kinda shit over in one of the Ed Sheeran threads. You sound like a young 20-something with some 100 level psych classes under your belt, and the one-day-old account screams "my main account got banned".)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

    There's no distinction between sociopath or psycopath, both were dropped from the DSM in favor of ASD.

    I'm gonna assume you're not arguing in bad faith and have just been brought up sheltered or in a cult - the reason we have POLICE which enforces laws through VIOLENCE is that people generally need fear to not do bad things.

    It's not something religious people need, nor people with ASD, the majority of the people in our jails are not mentally ill.

    It's something every society in every era of history has recognized as a necessity, including the one you live in right now.

    People WILL do bad things unless they have fear of punishment, people are not naturally empathetic or oriented towards social cohesion. That's why crime and punishment is a perennial instution throughout all recorded history.

    I'm going to avoid all the insults at the end, I don't know your past history but the voracity with which you sling insults whenever someone disagrees with you has apparently never occured to you to be immoral, unempathetic, or against social cohesion, so I doubt it will land today either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (3 children)

    They're both not currently official diagnoses but they mean different things in common use.

    "People" do not generally need fear to not do bad things. Some people need fear to not do bad things. Outliers do not define the norm.

    Religious people are not less violent or criminal than nonreligious people. See all of recorded history. I don't have data for ASD other than that until quite recently it was under-diagnosed and very poorly understood so there's little value in historic comparison.

    Law enforcement looks pretty different across time and cultures but the general through line is not "every person has to be watched lest they descend into barbarism" (despite what thin blue line types would have you believe) it's that an unguarded flock is easy prey. Predators are rare and always have been.

    People are naturally empathetic and we aren't the only animals like that. Toddlers have empathy well before they can be taught the cause-and-effect of possible punishment. Altruism is a very valuable trait for social animals to ensure survival of the species. The specifics of etiquette are taught but basic principles of fairness and comfort are in our DNA. Crime and punishment exist because the natural systems aren't perfect, and desperate/traumatized people are more likely to take advantage of others for personal gain. It's worse when society rewards amoral self-enriching behavior, as it does under Capitalism, because hate and selfishness can be taught just as surely as morality is. (Morals and ethics aren't exactly the same thing, and they do differ between cultures, and some pretty heinous things are enforced thanks to religious indoctrination.)

    Your claims aren't backed up by any kind of science. And if you think that's a cavalcade of verbal barbs maybe it is your first day on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

    The term of sociopathy was retired in the 60's, so no, it doesn't mean anything. You aren't talking to anyone who was alive back then, so if you've heard it used it's been misused.

    The idea that children are born with empathy is hilarious, while there are interesting baby studies suggesting this, any school yard or classroom will quickly dissuade anyone of that notion. Anyone who has gone to a school or worked as a teacher knows this.

    And it's a good example to go into, because once again, the only thing that keeps a large subset of children from doing bad things is punishment, and usually that just makes them better at avoiding it.

    And humans... come from children, and they largely don't change or mature as they grow up, studies who have tried to estimate the general mental age of humans find that they are stuck around 13-16 years old and stay there. And when we see how most people are just one bad day away from exploding, getting out and fighting someone in another car, or similar, that's not much of a surprise to anyone.

    I don't know what "thin blue line" is, I assume it's American thing, but no when it comes to greater civilisations throughout history we actually do find that law enforcement looks about the same, and that people can be exceptionally cruel and callous even when they don't gain anything from doing it except the pleasure of inflicting pain, emotional or physical.

    There's no evidence that people are naturally empathetic, and if they can be found to be so at the toddler stage we are effective at growing out of it. But you are right to point out some important point, we have invented Capitalism, probably the least empathetic system of governance we could come up with in which the individuals ability to take as much from everyone else is celebrated and deified - and whoever fails is seen as a loser who just didn't try hard enough. As expected, it's no manifestation of some innate empathy there.

    Then there's the fact that at any given time there's at least a 100 different armed conflicts going on on the earth at any time. Oh, and currently a Genocide too.

    Then there's our enormous system of law, which is always in an armsrace trying to illegalize the new ways in which people attempt to break the rules so that they can gain from taking from others, or just destroy what others have so that they have less. From giant corporations fighting each other, to simple neighbour feuds where two people simply cannot manage to coexist even if there weren't any problems between them to begin with - strife is the nature of humans on all levels and it needs constant arbitration to find out who was wrong, who was right, and how much they need to be punished.

    And they certainly don't need any religious excuse for these things, they're quite happy to do it without any divine justification. The ills of religions are simply an extension of the ills of humanity.

    I appreciate you pointing out that if you're on the internet you apparently should be ready to be insulted, because otherwise you're what, weak? Or naive? Once again the default human assumption is that we should expect there to be no consideration, probably that someone will hurt us, and if we don't like that, we better just toughen up because humanity is just so damn empathetic!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Alright well I showed an actual study and you continue making unfounded claims so I'm done. You're not interested in the truth, just reinforcing your jaded cynicism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

    We live in a world of constant strife and lack of empathy, and every answer you've given here has been full of unnecessary contentiousness and zero signs of empathy.

    You yourself have proven your own argument to be wrong with your conduct, it was never necessary to bring in the rest of humanity or any studies.

    Lost in your idealist platitudes about the goodness of mankind, you completely failed at empathy right here and now in a real human interaction, and when called out about it, you literally said: "Toughen up buddy".

    This whole thing reads like a comedy sketch.

    You were the quintessential refutation of your own argument from your very first reply, and it only got worse from there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago* (14 children)

    you are taught as a child that breaking social norms will result in punishment, and from then on your only motivation to follow them is fear of punishment.

    I didn't give up meat because I was worried about angry vegans coming to my house and beating me up, I gave up meat because I rationally evaluated the effects eating meat would have on the world and determined that those weren't effects I wanted to cause.

    Am I just built different?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (13 children)

    Yes, in all likelihood you have some kind of neurodivergence. That's why you've probably noticed people around you rarely function through rational choice the way you do.

    People are generally programmed to follow the tribe, keep opinions to confirm and demonstrate fealty to the tribe, and to avoid committing any taboos that could cause them to be cast out and die alone in the wild.

    And the people who did not do this mostly just had this exact happen and died.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (12 children)

    I am neurodivergent, but I'm not prepared to accept the implication that neurotypical people lack moral agency. Anyone is capable of thinking critically about their behavior and changing it. Not every vegan is neurodivergent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 days ago (11 children)

    You do not need to be neurodivergent to be vegan, but if you have arrived at veganism through rationality, you are neurodivergent.

    Neurodivergents have very strong empathy, so it is nearly psychologically impossible to see neurotypicals for what the really are. The truth is simply too painful that even though confronted with it thousands of times, and hurt deeply by it, most neurodivergents prefer the delusion to reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (10 children)

    So you're really advancing this idea that all neurotypicals are essentially p-zombies? That every moral philosopher or moral person in history was secretly neurodivergent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 days ago (9 children)

    What do you mean "advancing"? Every great person in history was clearly neurodivergent. They were clearly described as weird even for their time.

    And of course every moral person was neurodivergent? Why do you think moral people are emphasized in our history? Why do you think people talking about morals are emphasized in our history? Do you think that's because morals are normal?

    If someone was moral it was noteworthy, because it was abnormal. They were literally divergent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (8 children)

    That's a ridiculous perspective. It's basically eugenics. Moral people do not just have some innate mental quality that causes them to be moral.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    They do, and it's been studied too. People with autism for example both score higher on a sense of justice and a willingness to go against peer-pressure to uphold it.

    The famous Milgram experiment showed how neurotypicals were even willing to harm people as long as an authority told them to do so.

    It's not a perspective, it's established science.

    But you already knew this, right? If you are neurodivergent you can't have failed to observe this, regardless of your desire to live in a positive delusion. Reality is not so easily tuned out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (6 children)

    No I don't "already know this" because it's not true. Trying to pass off your conspiracy theory as "established science" is utterly laughable.

    People with autism for example both score higher on a sense of justice and a willingness to go against peer-pressure to uphold it.

    That is only a trend. It doesn't mean that neurotypicals are incapable of caring about justice or acting upon it, or that neurodivergent people aren't subject to peer-pressure.

    The famous Milgram experiment

    The Miligram experiment? Are you seriously trying to cite that to show "established science?" That's utterly ridiculous. The Miligram was unethical, unscientific, and not replicable. It's junk data. You'll just latch onto anything that supports your bullshit thesis. Is there even evidence to show that all the participants in that experiment were neurotypical, or is that just something you assumed because it fits with what you want to believe? Not that it even matters since the "experiment" failed to meet very basic scientific standards.

    But you already knew this, right?

    But you already knew that the moon is made of cheese and that Bill Gates is secretly a lizard person right? Don't try to justify your conspiracy theory by acting like it's "common sense." What you're claiming is complete and total bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago* (5 children)

    Discussions are meant to be in the service of uncovering the truth, but you went and got angry and now perceive this discussion as a fight for your sense of self.

    This doesn't lead us anywhere, and regardless of who wins this perceived "fight" the truth will lose either way.

    You take the time you need to settle back into clarity and then write a new reply, and we will doubtlessly get a fruitful conversation out of it.

    And in the future don't be so willing to give away your emotional clarity, it is your most precious possession.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (4 children)

    Jesus Christ, could you be any more condescending? First it's, "But you already know I'm right, don't you?" and now it's, "You're so emotional and defensive, you can see anything clearly if you don't control your emotions."

    Have you even considered the possibility that you could be wrong, and that my points are actually valid? The Miligram experiment is trash and it will always be trash regardless of my emotional state. Neurotypical people have moral agency and will continue to have moral agency regardless of my emotional state.

    Yes, I'm frustrated with this discussion, but that's because you are not being rational.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago* (3 children)

    Of course, at first it appears that our frustration comes from other people - but then some people get frustrated by one type of behaviour, while other people get frustrated by another type of behaviour - suddenly it becomes difficult to justify frustration as innately arising from certain behaviours, doesn't it? It all ends up being completely arbitrary and therefore without any central truth.

    You get frustrated because the behaviours you perceive (which are rarely even the behaviours actually displayed) trigger uncomfortable emotions in you, which you are not aware you can simply turn your attention inwards and allow and sit with, so you believe you must fight the external cause for your frustration for your system to settle down - a paradigm that leaves you feeling completely dependant on other people's ability to adhere to whatever system of behaviours you believe to be the "proper one", for your emotions to stay in control.

    Your points are actually irrelevant at this point, because the discussion is no longer about your points, your points are now being used as a weapon to win a fight in which you believe something is at stake. It's no longer just an interesting exchange of opinions.

    So because you have exchanged clarity for frustration and blamed it on something external, the discussion is no longer about the discussion, so we'll have to discuss the thing that's in the way of the discussion first of all, so that you can recognize that your frustration is yours, give you the tools to sit with it and not need me to change for you to be calm, and only then can we return to yours and mine points in a friendly matter.

    What a gift you've stumbled into really - a lifetime ahead of you where other people will never seem like the problem again, and you'll have the power to always take responsibility and regulate your own mental state.

    A crossroads! But do you take a moment to turn inwards and discover your inherent power? Or do you explode outwards again.

    These opportunities come once or twice in a person's lifetime. Wat will you do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (2 children)

    Of course, at first it appears that our frustration comes from other people

    This is as far as I got. If you're going to keep condescending to me, then I'm not interested in discussing anything with you.

    Reply again if you want me to block you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (5 children)

    but by what motivations their actions arise from, whether they come from Ego or understanding.

    i'm sorry to shatter your worldview, but this is wrong. people need an "ego", and more "understanding" is not always better.

    The "ego" is a symbol for the human stomach. Every time we eat, it's actually a gross and disgusting thing. nobody wants to see it, how you put your teeth into the soft and defenseless food. you're literally devouring, destroying precious food. gross. anyways, people need to eat, otherwise they die. it's the same with what you call "ego". sure, people are "egoistic" sometimes, but if they never are, they never gather the resources that they need and then they die. does not work that way.

    "understanding": the more people understand, the less physically active they are. people who do science often sit around all day. nobody would work physically and society wouldn't advance. there need to be people with limited understanding. just saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (4 children)

    Eating isn't gross and that's not what the Ego is. Ego is the idea that you have of yourself as a concept in your mind, the image of yourself. From that comes the idea that rhis imaginary image can be enlarged or diminished by other fictional things. Like how you think if someone insults you you have to fight them back, or if you people like you, you're more important. It's a complete absurdity where people fight over mental images and go to wars over ideas that do not exist in reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (3 children)

    that's just thorough bullshit. i can have an image of myself perfectly fine without trying to enlarge or dimish it and without engaging in fights with strangers.

    in fact, a meaningful self-image makes you a more meaningful part of the world, makes your life less chaotic and less feeling of pointlessness, reduces depression and anxiety, and allows you to understand what you can and can't do, so you're both more productive and less probable to overstrain yourself and get in accidents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

    You're literally getting into a fight about it right now and trying desperately to disprove it. Simply the shadow of a threat to a made-up image in your head that isn't even remotely related to who you actually are has you huffing and puffing on the internet and calling "thorough bullshit".

    Once you've fallen into the illusion that you aren't you, but instead this 2D caricature in your head created by a cloud of words strung together, you want to attach the good words to yourself and you don't want the bad words.

    And just by someone suggesting that the words you've attached to are not in fact the right words, and you're getting yourself red in the head your heart pounding your breath heaven and you're ready to use violence to destroy whatever seems to threaten these words you've attached to, only the fear of punishment and the law forcing bad words onto that self-image, stops you from doing so.

    Think about it, sticks and stones which can actually hurt your body, you don't care much about, but if someone says the wrong word you can't focus the whole day out of anger.

    Naturally you don't have a self-image, you're not words. Animals don't have anything like that, and you're nothing but an animal with a brain capable of abstraction. You can imagine a flying cow, but there is no such creature, it is pure abstraction. Similarly just because you can imagine an image in your head and think that that's you, naturally, it's a complete fiction.

    Words are a symbolic language, purely referential and conceptual, not related at all to reality. Once your mind creates an abstraction of itself through a language that can't even describe something as simple as a rock, you've gone and lost yourself completely to illusion and from then on, it's only natural that you commit all the evils of humanity over nothing. You've even got those religious people, who are ready to kill over what they think are the right and wrong words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    i think there is an instinct to get angry at people who are very stupid, because such people easily pose a threat to the community. imagine a person sets things on fire just through their immense stupidity; getting angry at such a person before-hand is an attempt to make them shut up and be quiet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    That's a catch 22. Only a stupid person would get angry at someone for being stupid, because a smart person would understand that the stupid person doesn't understand what they're doing and take the appropriate safety measures with kindness.

    Now the real danger to a community is the person that thinks they're getting angry because other people are stupid.

    Anger is the behaviour of fools.

  • source
  • parent